Evaluation of motion perception and binocular vision following dichoptic treatment for amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor monocular visual acuity and binocular vision, including stereopsis, are characteristic of amblyopia. Motion perception is also often disrupted in both amblyopic and fellow eyes. Occlusion therapy is the gold-standard treatment for amblyopia, but it is often not successful at restoring visual acuity, stereopsis or motion perception. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a recently developed video game-based dichoptic treatment for restoring these aspects of vision in amblyopia. Participants with strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia (5-56 years) were assessed before and after 8 weeks of binocular treatment (Vivid Vision) through a local optometry clinic. Treatment comprised either in-clinic supervised 30-min sessions or at-home training for at least 4 hours. We conducted monocular assessments of visual acuity and coherence thresholds for discriminating motion-defined form orientation and global motion direction. We also conducted binocular assessments of stereoacuity, depth-order (near/far) discrimination for fine (fused) and coarse (diplopia) disparity ranges, and interocular suppression measured as a contrast balance index on a dichoptic eye chart. Amblyopic eye visual acuity improved by 0.12 logMAR (p<.01) following treatment, but did not reach normal levels for any participant. Motion-defined form and global motion thresholds were abnormal in 70% and 75%, respectively, of amblyopic and in 40% and 50%, respectively, of fellow eyes before treatment. Motion-defined form improved with treatment (p=.01), and reached normal levels in young (5-8 years), but not older, participants. This improvement was only partially explained by the improvement in visual acuity. Global motion improved to normal levels in 2 participants. Stereoacuity did not improve. There was a trend towards improved depth-order discrimination for coarse, but not fine, disparities. Interocular suppression decreased in young (p=.01), but not older participants. The dichoptic treatment was modestly successful at improving visual acuity and binocular vision. It did prove efficacious at reducing motion deficits, particularly in younger children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".